Freedom of speech -- 50 years later

Freedom of speech -- 50 years later

By T. Sima Gunawan

Indonesia's founding fathers dreamed of building a country based
upon "Belief in the One, Supreme God, just and civilized
Humanity, the unity of Indonesia, and democracy," as the preamble
to the 1945 Constitution clearly states. How far are we from what
our founding fathers envisioned 50 years ago, especially with
regard to democracy? The following story and two others examine
the issue.

JAKARTA (JP): It is ironic, after fighting for independence
from 350 years of colonial rule, to realize that freedom also has
its limits.

The irony is worth pondering as Indonesia celebrates its 50th
year as a free nation.

Both the 1945 Constitution and Pancasila highly respect human
rights, even though neither specifically stipulates how to
implement these rights. One basic human right is freedom of
speech, a hot issue here lately. According to the Oxford
Dictionary, to speak with freedom is to speak without constraint,
fearing nothing.

How does it feel to speak without constraint, fearing nothing?

Article 28 of the Constitution says: "Freedom of association
and assembly, of expressing thoughts and of issuing writing and
the like, shall be prescribed by statute." However, problems
implementing the Article -- all substantial to democracy --
linger.

On July 28, the Jombang police in East Java broke up a
discussion featuring Abdurrahman Wahid, the leader of the Moslem
organization Nahdlatul Ulama, Megawati Soekarnoputri, chairwoman
of the Indonesian Democratic Party, and several Moslem
intellectuals including Nurcholis Madjid. The authorities allowed
the committee to continue the discussion after the theme was
changed from "cultural dialogue" to mauidloh hasanah (good
dialogue).

Wahid had been not allowed, however, to speak a month earlier
at a gathering held in another East Java town called Lamongan.
The government said that Wahid was not on the list of speakers on
the permit application.

Earlier, Teater Buruh Indonesia, or the Indonesian Labor
Theater, was forbidden from staging a play about Marsinah, the
labor activist who was murdered in 1993. The group had been
scheduled to perform at Taman Ismail Marzuki in Jakarta on May 13
and 14.

The Attorney General has also banned a number of books,
including those written by Pramoedya Ananta Toer, who is said to
be a left-wing author.

Setback

"There has been a set back in the exercise of freedom of
speech in the country," human right activist T. Mulya Lubis said.

Before the government banned Tempo, Editor and DeTik on June
21, 1994, it seemed that there was a greater opportunity for the
public to express their ideas, he said. The ban, which shocked
the nation, was followed by a series of incidents seen as curbs
on freedom of speech, such as the banning of public and academic
seminars.

Baharuddin Lopa, chairman of the National Commission of Human
Rights, blasted the authorities for constraining freedom of
speech.

"They should allow people to talk first," he insisted.

"If the people say something which offends the government, the
authorities can try the defendants under the existing law," he
added.

Article 154 of the Criminal Code, which was adopted from Dutch
law, carries a maximum of seven years in prison for anyone found
guilty of publicly expressing opposition, hatred or offense to
the government. Article 207 stipulates the maximum penalty for
someone guilty of insulting a government authority or body as one
year and six months in jail.

According to article 134, intentionally insulting the
President or Vice President is punishable by six years in prison.

Article 134, known as haatzai artikelen or the hatred-sowing
article, was borrowed from Dutch colonial law. It was implemented
by the Dutch because they believed that the monarch could do no
wrong.

Critics insist the article is obsolete and demand it removed
from current law.

They also criticize the government for wrongly interpreting
article 501 of the law.

The police contend that the article authorizes them to disband
any gathering, including a seminar, that doesn't have a permit.
But some legal experts, including Mulya Lubis, say the article is
really meant for gatherings such as wedding receptions and does
not apply to seminars or discussions.

Coordinating Minister for Politics and Security Affairs
Soesilo Soedarman announced on June 22 that the government was
waiving the permit requirement for academic activities on
University campuses.

He also promised to review the universal requirement for an
official permit for any gathering of more than five people,
including cultural exhibitions and performances. But so far there
has been no further statement issued.

In the first half of the year, more than 1,150 permits were
administered for various events, according to Soesilo. Five
requests have been turned down and 26 events have been broken up
because they did not comply with prerequisites.

"A permit is required to organize a seminar because the
government is not sure that things will go well with this," said
Budyatna, dean of the University of Indonesia's School of Social
and Political Sciences.

He observed that the government applies the security approach
to maintain the status quo because they don't want to risk
anything.

"The socio-political situation in the country is relatively
stable. But compared to the U.S. and some other well-established
countries, ours is still a little bit shaky," he added.

Budyatna, as well as Lubis and Lopa, said that the government
should employ a welfare approach instead of the security
approach.

"The implementation of the security approach is against the
principle of presumption of innocence," Lubis pointed out.

Now that Indonesia has seen significant economic progress, the
government should open the door for more democracy, Lubis added.

Lopa said: "There is an improvement in public awareness about
human rights, including the freedom of speech. The government
should follow this."

"Democracy is a characteristic of modern life. A modern
country tends not to curb the freedom of speech," said Lopa, who
is also Secretary General of Correctional Affairs at the Justice
Ministry.

Unfortunately, modernism has come from the West, where
traditions and culture are very different from Indonesia,
resulting in a long and tiring debate. Even though the West and
East agree on the universal concept of human rights, they have
different views about how to implement these rights.

Talking about freedom of speech, therefore means talking about
culture.

"We have to understand the different cultures in the first
place," Budyatna said.

"The West is guilt oriented, but Indonesia is a shame oriented
country," Budyatna explained.

"In the U.S., government officials who are criticized will
feel guilty, but in Indonesia they will feel ashamed," he said.

Americans live in a "low-context culture", which allows them
to state messages explicitly. But Indonesians, with their "high-
context culture", don't send their messages explicitly, the
American-educated Budyatna continued.

This explains why, unlike the Western press, the Indonesian
press is not able to be a control mechanism in the country. The
main function of the Indonesian press is to be the government's
partner, according to Budyatna, a communications expert.

It would be wrong if Indonesian's simply accepted Western
culture as is, because not all things offered by the West are
good. But Indonesia shouldn't simply shun everything either,
Budyatna said.

"The government should be able to adapt to the situation. We
will soon enter the era of globalization. We can't be rigid,
otherwise we will be alienated by other countries," he said.

Budyatna observed that lower-income people don't have time to
bother about the freedom of expression as they are still
struggling to survive. The demand for the right of expression
emanates from the middle and upper-class. He said that not all
established people actually care about the issue either,
preferring instead to enjoy their monetary success.

"The struggle for human rights is risky," Budyatna said.

But he pointed out that the demand for more freedom of speech
will rise as more intellectuals and idealists who want more than
material goods accept the risk.

Lubis says people will react in two ways if the government
continues to limit freedom of speech. They will be either
apathetic or they will become restless and skeptical. They will
not believe what they read in newspapers, what they see on TV or
what they hear on the radio.

Lopa predicts that the situation could lead to chaos.

"Things can be dangerous. If freedom of expression is
continuously checked, people could explode," he warns.